acacia rigidula iforce maximize intense

is this ingredient safe? apparently the leaf contains the ingredients below.. what did you guys extract in the new formula? looking to get away from craze due to its many sides... what can i expect from this? any help is greatly appreciated! thanks guy

I am NOT taking a position on this subject as I have not read into this but here is some info stolen from another board...

Toxic amines and alkaloids from acacia rigidula

Acacia rigidula Benth., blackbrush, is a shrub found growing on rocky ridges in west and southwest Texas and northern Mexico. Consumption of blackbrush and a related species guajillo, Acacia berlandieri Benth., has been associated with a locomotor ataxia known as "limber leg".

A. rigidula has been shown to contain appreciable levels of toxic alkaloids. Sheep and goats grazing on a related species, Acacia berlandieri Benth., guajillo, during periods of drought in the Rio Grande Plains of Texas have developed a locomotor ataxia referred to as "guajillo wobbles" or "limber leg" [2]. Previous analysis of blackbrush had detected and identifed four amines, N-methyl-b-phenethylamine (NMPEA), tyramine, N-methyltyramine, and hordenine, which were also found in guajillo [3].

As a result of this study, an intensive chemical analysis of A. rigidula Benth. was undertaken to identify the amines and alkaloids present in the leaves and stems that would comprise browse material.

Forty-four amines and alkaloids, including the four previously encountered amines, N-methyl-b-phenethylamine, tyramine, N-methyltyramine, and hordenine, were identifed by GC-MS.

The majority of the isolated alkaloids, 18 of the 33 identifed, were related to the parent compound b-phenethylamine. These compounds generally varied in the degree of N-methylation, x-methylation (amphetamine family), and in oxygenation of the aromatic ring (tyramine, dopamine, and mescaline families). The 2-cyclohexylethylamine and the N-cyclohexylethyl-N-methylamine are the saturated analogs of the phenethylamine and NMPEA respectively. Tryptamine, N-methyltryptamine, and N,N-dimethyltryptamine were also isolated from blackbrush.

Other noteworthy alkaloids found in blackbrush include nicotine, nornicotine, and four tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids, anhalamine, anhalidine, anhalonidine, and peyophorine. The amides of the amino acids pipecolic acid and p-hydroxypipecolic acid were also detected.

As was previously found with NMPEA the foliage collected in the autumn contained higher quantities of amines and alkaloids [10]. There was also a distinct increase in the number and quantity of methylated analogs present (Table 1).

Several as yet unidentifed amine-containing compounds have been detected but have not yet been identifed. It is also probable that several biosynthetic precursors are present in the mixture but as yet are unresolved and are below the threshold of GC-MS detection.

Phenolic amines, as a group, impact the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis [11]. The consequent release of ACTH and cortisol results in symphathomimetic action. The number of phenolic amines reported in Table 1 and their concentrations in the plant indicate a substantial toxic load to animals consuming blackbrush. The toxicity of nicotine and nornicotine has been well established [12], as has the psychoactivity of mescaline and its derivatives. None of the compounds identifed appear to have been implicated in locomotor ataxia. However the presence of the amphetamines suggests the possibility for a reduction of monoamine oxidase activity [13]. FULL VERSION: http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodiu...a.rigidula.pdf

Excerpts from:Chemistry of Acacia's from South Texas

Acacia species in south Texas contain numerous chemical compounds, many of which have negative effects on animal performance.

Alkaloids, phenolic amines, phytoestrogens, and tannis have been identified in south Texas acacias.

Many of the acacias of south Texas are considered to be valuable forage for deer and domestic livestock. It is known, however, that at least one species, guajillo (Acacia berlandieri) will produce a paralytic condition in sheep and goats called "guajillo wobbles." As part of a larger study investigating the chemistry of south Texas range plants, we determined the chemical composition of the leaves of several south Texas acacias.

Most woody plants contain a variety of chemical compounds a number of which have the advantage to the plant of being toxic to animals that consume them. Many of these defensive compounds are nitrogen-based, though there also are a significant number of nonnitrogenous toxic compounds. Additionally, plants produce compounds which may be repellent or, as in the case of tannins, lower the nutritional value of the plant. Early research, using paper and thin-layer chromatographic techniques, identified several phenolic amines in A. berlandieri, including n-methyl-phenethylamine (NMP), tyramine, nmethyltyramine and hordenine.

The phenolic amines, such as tyramine, hordenine and N-methyl-B-phenethylamine are powerful activators of the sympathetic nervous system causing the release of cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone. In addition to the alkaloids, the plants were also found to contain intricate mixtures of tannins and flavenoids including catechin, fisetin and quercetin.

While tannins and their antinutritional effects have been the subject of much research in recent years, little attention has been paid to the negative effects of consumption of other secondary compounds that are not acutely toxic. However, recent research has shown the negative effects on fertility of consumption of amine-containing forage. Consumption of guajillo and blackbrush was shown to reduce fertility in male goats, and to reduce their ability to handle stressful situations such as transportation.

Agreed. This is the beauty of standardized extracts. If it was a full spectrum, whacked, then issues would be had.

But nicotine eh? Some great research on that there. Neuro protective and lipolysis amongst other things

Not to go off topic, but I think this has just better explained standardized extracts for me, thanks!

So if an extract is 20% standardized, 20% of it has is a custom extract of the plant and 80% is full spectrum? To this end, I guess not all standardized extracts would be equal, kinda of like a prop blend herbs. I assume no company would claim 100% for legal reasons, so I assume that would me that any 'pure' product would be synthesized, and thus actually pure, yeah? Thanks!

are any of the 3 isomers in craze? this stuff seems all too "hidden" if i must say so.... why not put all 4 ingredients that were extracted in the label and in progressive order? instead of putting them under the umbrella ingredient. I love hemavol so im not bashing... just curious as this whole craze debacle has me suspect of everything these days.

I'm very impressed with I-Force's R&amp;D departement. Not only did they find an affordable way to standarize GTE for theophylline content, they now surpassed themselves by finding an afforable way to standarize an acacia rigidula extract for specific PEAs and a compound that isn't even found in acacia rigidula. Furthermore, they also found a way to get rid of some illegal compounds found in acacia rigidula.

It's only a matter of time until Vaughn will be headhunted by Pfizer or Novartis.

I'm very impressed with I-Force's R&D departement. Not only did they find an affordable way to standarize GTE for theophylline content, they now surpassed themselves by finding an afforable way to standarize an acacia rigidula extract for specific PEAs and a compound that isn't even found in acacia rigidula. Furthermore, they also found a way to get rid of some illegal compounds found in acacia rigidula.

It's only a matter of time until Vaughn will be headhunted by Pfizer or Novartis.

I'm very impressed with I-Force's R&D departement. Not only did they find an affordable way to standarize GTE for theophylline content, they now surpassed themselves by finding an afforable way to standarize an acacia rigidula extract for specific PEAs and a compound that isn't even found in acacia rigidula. Furthermore, they also found a way to get rid of some illegal compounds found in acacia rigidula.

It's only a matter of time until Vaughn will be headhunted by Pfizer or Novartis.

I have no financial interest in this, so why would I spend hundreds to have your product tested? Anyone with common sense knows it's highly unlikely/impossible you're using an extract. It's only a matter of time until you guys get busted again, so I guess until then you can claim whatever you want. Just don't expect everyone is stupid enough to believe your BS.

I fail to see where he is incorrect. Methylsynephrine is not a constituent of acacia, so it would be impossible to extract.

Furthermore, Shulgin did not believe that the greater majority of PEA derivatives listed above actually exist in Acacia spp. He believed that their presence was the result of contamination. N-methyl-PEA likely exists, however, and is mildly toxic to some mammals.

I fail to see where he is incorrect. Methylsynephrine is not a constituent of acacia, so it would be impossible to extract.

Furthermore, Shulgin did not believe that the greater majority of PEA derivatives listed above actually exist in Acacia spp. He believed that their presence was the result of contamination. N-methyl-PEA likely exists, however, and is mildly toxic to some mammals.

Hi-Tech Pharm is the company who was able to isolate/locate MS in acacia, and I can verify from seeing the raw material in my hand as well as seeing the COA's that it is a natural extract, and no isolated compounds.

Here is their write up on the MS portion:

Methylsynephrine -is phenolic B-Phenylethylamine found in Acacia rigidula and some cacti, which produces considerable central nervous stimulation (CNS). With Hi-Tech's research over the past five years on Acacia rigidula (as Thermo-Rx®), Hi-Tech has identified and isolated severarl key phenylethylamine alkaloids. The newest of which is methylsynephrine. The alkaloids from' Acacia rigidula are biologically and physiologically similar to those found in ephedra, and possess properties that are shared with ephedra alkaloids. Scientifically, this is in part due to the similarities in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The most obvious similarity is that Acacia alkaloids, like the ephedra alkaloids, readily pass into the brain. The main factor governing the transfer of small molecules into the central nervous system is lipophilicity. The distribution of drugs and/or compounds into the CNS from the blood is unique, because functional barriers are present that restrict entry of drugs into this critical site. One reason for this is that the brain capillary endothelial cells have continuous tight junctions; therefore, drug penetration into the brain depends on transcellular rather than paraceuliar transport between cells. The unique characteristics of pericapillary glial cells also contribute to the blood-brain barrier. At the choroids plexus, a similar blood-cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) barrier is present, except that it is epithelial cells that are joined by tight junctions rather than endothelial cells. As a result, the lipid solubility of the nonionized and unbound species of the drug is an important determinant of its uptake by the brain; the more lipophilic it is, the more likely it is to cross the blood-brain barrier. This situation is used in drugs design to alter the brain distribution, which is the case with drugs like amphetamine, phentermine, and benzphetamine. As you can see from the comparison of the structures of ephedrine, norephedrine, and methylsynephrine they all possess the N-methyl substituent of the aliphatic sidechain, which is characteristic of ephedrine and its congeners, as well as methylsynephrine, thus further increasing lipophilicity.

Hi-Tech Pharm is the company who was able to isolate/locate MS in acacia, and I can verify from seeing the raw material in my hand as well as seeing the COA's that it is a natural extract, and no isolated compounds.

Here is their write up on the MS portion:

Understand that the correct nomenclature for this compound is beta-methoxy-synephrine not "methylsynephrine."

I understand the non-dshea compliance argument people care about(to an extent), but not the synthetic aspect. As far as I know/knew most supplements are synthetic down to vitamin C. If everything was extracted this industry would probably bankrupt or be ridiculously priced.

If I am way off please correct me(srs).

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/231713-rob112-3-means.html
"Train like a animal, think like a human"-RTS

I understand the non-dshea compliance argument people care about(to an extent), but not the synthetic aspect. As far as I know/knew most supplements are synthetic down to vitamin C. If everything was extracted this industry would probably bankrupt or be ridiculously priced.

If I am way off please correct me(srs).

you are correct. The entire synthetic vs natural argument makes zero sense due to compounds being chemically identical regardless of how they are created. 99% vitamin c = 99% vitamin c, regardless of source of origin.

I understand the non-dshea compliance argument people care about(to an extent), but not the synthetic aspect. As far as I know/knew most supplements are synthetic down to vitamin C. If everything was extracted this industry would probably bankrupt or be ridiculously priced.

If I am way off please correct me(srs).

This isn't about whether synthetic supplements are compliant or not, but whether the compounds are actually found naturally.

For example, I could synthetically introduce some novel PEA analogues and claim they come from some mysterious chinese plant - shí hú lán. The burden of proof would be on me to show where the compounds have been found extracted in the literature. Otherwise, I am simply releasing designer drugs which probably have no safety data, much less human empirical data.

Save me the BS. Hi-Tech claims to use a 70% acacia rigidula extract while you claim to use a 98% 'extract'. Their claim about MS being present in acacia rigidula is unsubstantiated and it wouldn't be the first time companies lie about these things. Regardless, even if it's true this ingredient is found in acacia rigidula it would require an NDI notification 75 days prior to the date of intended initial market introduction. I guess you have no problems showing us this NDI notification?

acacia rigidula is found in the food supply as well as is naturally occuring(obviously as its a plant), as such, it does not require an NDI. However, that being said, the compound we're discussing(not oxilfroline) has been available in OTC dietary aids since before 1994(in citrus aurantium) and is therefor DSHEA as well.

Save me the BS. Hi-Tech claims to use a 70% acacia rigidula extract while you claim to use a 98% 'extract'. Their claim about MS being present in acacia rigidula is unsubstantiated and it wouldn't be the first time companies lie about these things. Regardless, even if it's true this ingredient is found in acacia rigidula it would require an NDI notification 75 days prior to the date of intended initial market introduction. I guess you have no problems showing us this NDI notification?

As I mentioned previously, I agree that the "methylsynephrine" that we use colloquially (i.e. alpha-methylsynephrine) is not present in Acacia spp., however beta-methoxy-synephrine has been identified in the literature.

The question is, will beta-methoxy-synephrine do anything?

From a stucture activity relationship standpoint, the beta-substituent must be either 1) polar (direct agonism) or 2) absent (releasing) in order to effect adrenergic signaling. A methoxy substitent at this position is distinctly nonpolar and so I cannot envision a scenario where it has any activity (save for possible serotonin reuptake inhibition).

I fail to see where he is incorrect. Methylsynephrine is not a constituent of acacia, so it would be impossible to extract.

Furthermore, Shulgin did not believe that the greater majority of PEA derivatives listed above actually exist in Acacia spp. He believed that their presence was the result of contamination. N-methyl-PEA likely exists, however, and is mildly toxic to some mammals.

I agree with your points madchemist , but kinda acusing someone in such a tone and with that kind of snide remarks is not the way to do it...I believe there are better ways to try and ask for proof of the toxicity or purity of their alkaloids , or selection if you may...not go all the way to say they are doing something wrong and that they could get caught on it...Merely a..."hey come on...better ways to try to get your points out there without being a d1ck about it"

True , I guess it is required to be composed, and more mature than the usual crowd in forums, if you are gonna be a rep or have a position in a company for supplements. Back to topic...where's PA...He might wanna be nice and test it out just for the heck of it...then again I see many posts of him saying: "if you ship it with 100 dollars I might look into it" lol

I think it would go a long way if they actually did let PA test it. I don't think iForce would have a problem producing 100 dollars for the test.

Hm true , then again no need to test , if OP merely doesn't like or trust the product , it can be solved with just not trying , along with Angelobolic and other people who share their thoughts. No one forces them to try it , also no need for iForce to prove anything IMO.

you're right. we have nothing actually in the product. it's all just sugar + flour.

The ingredients on the label? They're there for fun.

I never had to elaborate as to what the actives in the extract are(it does nothing but help other companies mimic our results), so to think that I would pay for additional testing to what we already have to comply with for FDA requirements due to our 2009 fiasco, I just can't grasp my head around it.

Send a tub to PA, have him test it out. Thus why I've said numerous times over here "please, test my product, I'll wait".

you're right. we have nothing actually in the product. it's all just sugar + flour.

The ingredients on the label? They're there for fun.

I never had to elaborate as to what the actives in the extract are(it does nothing but help other companies mimic our results), so to think that I would pay for additional testing to what we already have to comply with for FDA requirements due to our 2009 fiasco, I just can't grasp my head around it.

Send a tub to PA, have him test it out. Thus why I've said numerous times over here "please, test my product, I'll wait".

I'm not saying your product is just flour + sugar. I'm saying that your belief that beta-methoxy-synephrine is a stimulant should be verified by a 3rd party, since it goes against everything we know about stimulant pharmacology. If it checks out, then the fundamental axioms of SAR need some adjusting.

I'm not saying your product is just flour + sugar. I'm saying that your belief that beta-methoxy-synephrine is a stimulant should be verified by a 3rd party, since it goes against everything we know about stimulant pharmacology. If it checks out, then the fundamental axioms of SAR need some adjusting.

I disagree. Lets assume for the sake of argument that the specific synephrine compound we're talking about has absolutely zero activity, and it adds literally zero to the formula.

Does that mean the rest of the product has no effect? There is more to this product than simply acacia rigidula. If we were selling a pure acacia product, I could understand the thought, but its not, its a pre-wo blend of 10+ ingredients.

I never had to elaborate as to what the actives in the extract are(it does nothing but help other companies mimic our results),

I actually agree with you. You are attempting to protect your intellectual property.

However, since you have already mentioned that beta-methoxy-synephrine is one of the actives, I don't see the harm in analyzing it further (you may disagree). I will accept your challenge. Feel free to send me beta-methoxy-synephrine and I will test it anecdotally.

While I understand exactly what you're saying, I do know however what Beta-methoxy-synephrine feels like when dosed 20-80mg. It hits, and hits hard.

Originally Posted by VaughnTrue

I disagree. Lets assume for the sake of argument that the specific synephrine compound we're talking about has absolutely zero activity, and it adds literally zero to the formula. Does that mean the rest of the product has no effect?

can i get an answer as to why the exact extracts are not listed and the plant as a whole is listed..... normally i see blank extraced for blank.... instead of the whole plant on the label. just wondering...this is all very interesting and alarming simultaneously. I was so senile with the supplement industry and luckily this craze debacle has me researching more and more.

can i get an answer as to why the exact extracts are not listed and the plant as a whole is listed..... normally i see blank extraced for blank.... instead of the whole plant on the label. just wondering...this is all very interesting and alarming simultaneously. I was so senile with the supplement industry and luckily this craze debacle has me researching more and more.

for the same reason our citrus aurantium is not enumerated out with each of the actives in it. We make unique extracts(well, we have them made for us. we do no synthesis on our own), and like to keep certain trade secrets so our competitors cannot gain an advantage on our money/time spent researching.

The way we label both the citrus aurantium and acacia rigidula are the same, and are considered a "proper" labeling technique according to the FDA.

for the same reason our citrus aurantium is not enumerated out with each of the actives in it. We make unique extracts(well, we have them made for us. we do no synthesis on our own), and like to keep certain trade secrets so our competitors cannot gain an advantage on our money/time spent researching.

The way we label both the citrus aurantium and acacia rigidula are the same, and are considered a "proper" labeling technique according to the FDA.

I actually agree with you. You are attempting to protect your intellectual property.

However, since you have already mentioned that beta-methoxy-synephrine is one of the actives, I don't see the harm in analyzing it further (you may disagree). I will accept your challenge. Feel free to send me beta-methoxy-synephrine and I will test it anecdotally.